So are boards like this one going to be watched for any anti-Obama statements and will we MT members get knocks on our doors from sunglassed suits flashing an SS badge/ID ?
I think our freedom of speech should still allow us to critique the current administration as long as there are no overt or subliminal threats against it/him. I mean people bitched and moaned about the past presidents ... are they saying it's wrong to do so now?
If that's the case then we're no longer two steps away from Fascism we're only one step away.
There's critiquing our government and then there are perceived threats.
Yes there was a case of a teen girl putting up a photo of Bush with the caption "kill Bush" she was rolled on by the feds. So it is not just an Obama thing, but as it was said I am sure it will be worse now.
She should have been rolled. I didn't like Bush and thought his presidency was an abomination ... but I'd *never* put up a sign like that. Stupid kid.
But there is the thing; Making a violent statement in relation to the president WILL bring in the Secret Service.
Saying you think that a president is a jerk, idiot or is only capable of ventose utterances of vacuity or any other non-violent statement will not. Threaten violence and expect them to look for and likely find you.
Yes, abort = kill; murder or not.
Yes but that can and was construed as a threat... an open invitation to anyone to do so. Saying "Kill" means you want the man dead. It cannot and should not be viewed in any other way except that... particularly in relation to the president of these United States. It's radically different than say at a High School Football Rally where signs could be posted "Kill Midtown High!" would be seen. These days I don't think they're even allowed to do THAT anymore. "Beat" or "Crush" is alright just not "KILL".
Saying back then Bush is a bad president or is doing a piss-poor job of running this country isn't a threat... it's an observation or an opinion.
Question is if we say the same about Obama are we going to get rolled up?
You can't say "kill midtown high," in fact, my son wanted to carry his dad's HS sports nickname "Killer" as the last name is Ketchmark and it just sounds kewl.
Alas, he cannot as it denotes *the possibility of violence* ... this in
football, folks.
But Bush was threatend all the time. People protested when ever Bush went anywhere. No one ever sent the SS to every protestors house.
Not every protestor stated they wanted to "Abort" or "kill" Bush ... and I'm sure anyone who did was addressed.
This is just the Liberals ideas of free speech. Just like professors on college campuses. It's free only as long as you agree with them.
Oh stop it; you remove any credibility to your argument by jumping into the "we vs. them" argument ... it doesn't apply here.
Funny thing is, conservatives tend to view 'abortion' as murder (if they are pro-life, which many are).
Liberals tend to view 'abortion' as removal of something unwanted (if they are pro-choice, which many are).
So one would think that a liberal administration would read the sign to say "Remove Obama, not the Unborn."
And yet, it seems some read it as "Murder Obama, not the unborn."
A tacit admission that abortion is murder by people who would otherwise not make such a statement?
Murder or Kill? Is capitol punishment murder? or controlled, necessary killing? We can have *that* argument elsewhere but as it applies to this particular argument ... the sign could have read "Hang the Man" and he wouldn't have been pulled over; could have read "End the Liberal Movement" and he wouldn't have been touched. Abortion indicates the ending of life in its very definition, hence, it is appropriate to address regardless of political affiliation. I think most here would define me as liberal and I still say the reaction was appropriate.
And by the same token, the guy who made the sign is obviously pro-life - and feels that abortion is the same as murder. So arguing that when he used the word 'abort' with reference to the President, he didn't mean 'murder', but 'remove from office', seems a little weak.
I'm *very* glad you typed that. It's an excuse to abuse the "Freedom of Speech" - ironically something usually decried by conservatives, no?
The sign, IMHO, was borderline. The officer was right to pull traffic on the guy if he felt it constituted a threat. If he did not have cause to arrest the driver, however, he should not have confiscated his sign. That was a mistake. The rest was pretty much by-the-book, and to be expected as a logical course of events.
I think if the sign were to be removed rightly, it should have been done by the SS. Yes they can be over-the-top, but I understand their walk-through. I have to wonder if there is a group using this term who has issued a *credible* threat to the president, though just the nature of the color of his skin is cause to be over-the-top since those who seek to end him are also over-the-top.
, but .gov can also mean they work for a government office that has nothing to do with security. I am not investigating anyone but it is likely I show up as a .gov or .us on occasion.
